Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10, 12-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clements, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0214519.
Clements, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0214519.
Clements discloses a muffler preform comprising fibers which are impregnated with a small molecular sugar comprising a sugar alcohol, wherein the sugar can be sucrose, galactose, lactose. See paragraph 0024. The sugar used as a binder. See paragraph 0026. The sugar is melted and therefore is melt processed. See paragraph 0026. Clements lists the particular sugars which are claimed. In addition to glass fibers, Clements also teaches that rockwool can also be used. Note that rockwool is a nonwoven fabric which meets the limitations of claim 1 because the basalt is formed into fibers which are gathered and compressed into a mat.
Clements differs from the claimed invention because it does not teach the proportions of the additive and the sugar component or the particular properties obtained.
However, with regard to the particular proportions, it would have been obvious to have selected a suitable amount of the binder which provided a strong product without using excess materials.
Further with regard to the particular properties obtained, since Clements teaches the same materials used in the same ways, it is reasonable to expect that the particular properties to have the claimed improvements and it further would have been obvious to have selected the proportions of binder and fibers which produced a material having the desired density, flexural strength, flexural modulus and compressive strength without using excessive materials.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10, 12-13, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al, Novel Sugar Alcohol/Carbonized Kapok Fiber Composites as Form-Stable Phase-Change Materials with Exceptionally High Latent Heat for Thermal Energy Storage.
An teaches a composite material comprising a fibrous material such as carbonized kapok fiber and a phase change material which can be a sugar alcohol such as erythritol or mannitol. See page 4849, first column, first full paragraph. The sugar alcohol can be melted and combined with the kapok fiber. See page 4852, columns 1 and 2 as well as page 4854. With regard to claims 16-20, An teaches that the material is renewable, clean and sustainable. Since the binder in An can be formed into an aqueous solution since it is known that sugars can be dissolved in water or melt processed, it would have been obvious to have recycled the material of An by either dissolving the sugar or breaking down the material and melting it to form a reusable pellet.
An does not teach the does not teach the proportions of the additive and the sugar component or the particular properties obtained.
However, with regard to the particular proportions, it would have been obvious to have selected a suitable amount of the binder which provided a strong product without using excess materials.
Further with regard to the particular properties obtained, since An teaches the same materials used in the same ways, it is reasonable to expect that the particular properties to have the claimed improvements and it further would have been obvious to have selected the proportions of binder and fibers which produced a material having the desired density, flexural strength, flexural modulus and compressive strength without using excessive materials.
Claim(s) 6-9, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An as applied to claims above, and further in view of McNeil et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0216737.
An differs from the claimed invention because it does not teach providing a coating.
However, McNeil teaches providing a protective coating on phase change materials. See paragraph 0027. The coating can include those claimed. See paragraph 0029.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a coating on the structure of An et al in order to protect the phase change structure.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to Clements, Applicant argues that Clements teaches continuous glass fibers which are not included in the claimed additives. However, Clement also teaches that the material may be made by including rockwool, which is basalt fibers which are formed and then collected and formed into a mat and which is therefore a nonwoven fabric. Since fabrics are listed as claimed additives, Clements meets the limitations of claim 1 as amended.
With regard to An, Applicant argues that An is not concerned with forming a strong product. However, An would necessarily be concerned with forming a product that had sufficient strength to be functional and durable. Additionally, the amount of carbonized kapok fiber in An is within the range of 5-60 wt% as claimed. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights